BoxRec

I Feel Fine wrote:

pringle wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote: Dempseyfire... x2... and Biggs fought a dumb fight, might have had a chance had he continued doing what he did in the first round. Still probably would have lost, but it would have been more competitive had he not abandoned his gameplan.

Hoooo boy Now Biggs would have had a chance against Tyson had he done this or that, changed his strategy or whatever. Yet Tyson wouldn't stand a chance against Ali, no matter what.
It was obvious except to only the most dense of the one-celled organisms that Tyson was carrying Biggs throughout that match. Maybe they should issue the Biggs-Tyson fight in braille so you can see it also.

He abandoned his strategy after winning the first round. Had a chance? Sure. Had a good chance? No. A few of Tyson's title challengers would have had a better chance at beating him had they fought smarter. He was fighting idiots. I can sympathize with him on what that's like.

"He abandoned his strategy after winning the first round" Hmmm, who made him do that?
No way it could have been the guy in the other corner, noooo no way it could have been Tyson that made him change his strategy. Robin, Robin Givens...Is that you? Let it go girl, move on with your life.

......Now world ranked heavyweight title challenger are idiots, I've heard it all.

Tex Cobb was a real smart fighter, was he?
I never said that it wasn't Tyson. Inexperienced fighters like Biggs are easily taken out of their gameplan. It takes a great like Holyfield to stick to one, which is why Tyson wouldn't beat him.

Holyfield has a wretched history of sticking to gameplans, as a general rule of thumb.

True, but he did with Tyson.

I Feel Fine wrote:True, but he did with Tyson.

True, also.

Robinson wrote:BRR,

You should run a Louis opponents vs Tyson's ones also.

- Not nearly so useful in comparing the careers of Ali, Holmes, and Tyson who are so close as to be considered of the same general era.

Tyson turns pro less than 5 yrs removed from Ali's last title challenge and wins his title less than 2 yrs later from the last fighter to beat Ali less than 5 yrs before. Then you get into the major subplot of Big George's comeback with a significant overlap of era opponents with Tyson.

I do like Louis opponents vs Ali opponents because of the nature of the more segregated preWW2/more integrated postWW2 eras that sees heavyweight boxing open up to the masses more via radio, TV, and moviehouses. Also Louis and Ali are natural head to head comparisons because of their youthful talents and layoffs that play out in a similar fashion highlighted by their military subplots.

Unfortunately we have some nasty badger like characters who, to paraphrase the much maligned 911 commission's summation of pre-911 governmental institutions, suffer from a failure of imagination. They befoul the discussion with liberal spraying using anally located scent glands which reduces the likelyhood of anyone wanting to challenge them head to head since few in life want to end up smelling like IFF or Saadsack.

Evoking the 911 Commission to make an incoherent snide remark about others on a boxing website... plain contemptible. Any Holocaust parallels, while you're at it? There is nothing insightful about what you are doing on this thread, neither in this head to head matchup system which barely scratches the surface of which list of opponents is better, much less the title reign in a fuller sense, nor in your "analysis" of how the fights would go, which is plain comedy. You've furthermore contradicted yourself and lied about my comments in nearly every post on this thread. Pretty low, even by internet standards.

I Feel Fine wrote:Evoking the 911 Commission to make an incoherent snide remark about others on a boxing website... plain contemptible. Any Holocaust parallels, while you're at it? There is nothing insightful about what you are doing on this thread, neither in this head to head matchup system which barely scratches the surface of which list of opponents is better, much less the title reign in a fuller sense, nor in your "analysis" of how the fights would go, which is plain comedy. You've furthermore contradicted yourself and lied about my comments in nearly every post on this thread. Pretty low, even by internet standards.

- Still provoking with your anally located befouling scent glands, eh?

Here's the insipid little gem that inspired this thread that you've sprayed with such fury as to befuddle the senses of the Furies themselves:

I Feel Fine
Post subject: Re: 1959-2009: The Greatest Fighter of the Last 50 YearsPosted: Yesterday, 18:41 Tyson's opposition in his first title reign was average, as was Ali's in the 60s. Ali was not only a great fighter but a hall of famer before he ever had a fight in the 70s. 60s Ali was the best Heavyweight ever to put on a pair of gloves. Tyson fans never learn.
Tyson's win over Michael Spinks will go down as one of the most overrated accomplishment in boxing history.
Tyson's reign of terror was real impressive when Douglas bounced him around the ring like a sock puppet.

Let's see if I got IFF nonsensical illogic correct:

Tyson's 80s reign average as was Ali's 60's reign, but Ali a HOFer and the best ever by end of 60s whereas Tyson will go down as the most overrated in history........real impressive like a sock puppet.

BRILLIANT!!!!!

You're misapprehending. How unlike you.
Were Tyson and Ali's title reigns both about average, in the wider context of Heavyweight history? Yes.
Were they both Hall of Famers when their title reigns ended? Yes.
Was Ali the best ever Heavyweight when his reign ended? In terms of ability, yes, Ali was the best to put on a pair of gloves. In terms of accomplishments, no; when Ali's first reign ended Louis was still the more accomplished all time champion and I would have rated him #1. I would say the same of, say, Marciano and Frazier; I think Joe was better but I rate Rocky higher based on accomplishments.
Tyson's getting his ass busted by Douglas does hurt, however you obfuscate that point.
Finally, was Tyson the most overrated Heavyweight in boxing history? Absolutely.

I think my reasoning is pretty straightforward. Your reasoning is non-existent. You're here to bait.

Ali and Tyson 10-0 8 KO's during the mentioned age period.

Ali's opponents at time of fight:
total record= 442-60-7 284 KO's
Average Weight= 205 lbs

Loss % of total fights= 11.8%
KO% of total fights= 55.8%

Tyson's opponents at time of fight:
total record= 286-17-2 218 KO's
Average Weight= 224 lbs.

Loss % of total fights= 5.6%
KO% of total fights= 71.5%


Tyson's opponents were 9.3% bigger, had 28.6% more KO's and 50% less losses than Ali's opponents

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Evoking the 911 Commission to make an incoherent snide remark about others on a boxing website... plain contemptible. Any Holocaust parallels, while you're at it? There is nothing insightful about what you are doing on this thread, neither in this head to head matchup system which barely scratches the surface of which list of opponents is better, much less the title reign in a fuller sense, nor in your "analysis" of how the fights would go, which is plain comedy. You've furthermore contradicted yourself and lied about my comments in nearly every post on this thread. Pretty low, even by internet standards.

- Still provoking with your anally located befouling scent glands, eh?

Here's the insipid little gem that inspired this thread that you've sprayed with such fury as to befuddle the senses of the Furies themselves:

I Feel Fine
Post subject: Re: 1959-2009: The Greatest Fighter of the Last 50 YearsPosted: Yesterday, 18:41 Tyson's opposition in his first title reign was average, as was Ali's in the 60s. Ali was not only a great fighter but a hall of famer before he ever had a fight in the 70s. 60s Ali was the best Heavyweight ever to put on a pair of gloves. Tyson fans never learn.
Tyson's win over Michael Spinks will go down as one of the most overrated accomplishment in boxing history.
Tyson's reign of terror was real impressive when Douglas bounced him around the ring like a sock puppet.

Let's see if I got IFF nonsensical illogic correct:

Tyson's 80s reign average as was Ali's 60's reign, but Ali a HOFer and the best ever by end of 60s whereas Tyson will go down as the most overrated in history........real impressive like a sock puppet.

BRILLIANT!!!!!

On top of that, he thinks I'm you. LOL

pringle wrote:Ali and Tyson 10-0 8 KO's during the mentioned age period.

Ali's opponents at time of fight:
total record= 442-60-7 284 KO's
Average Weight= 205 lbs

Loss % of total fights= 11.8%
KO% of total fights= 55.8%

Tyson's opponents at time of fight:
total record= 286-17-2 218 KO's
Average Weight= 224 lbs.

Loss % of total fights= 5.6%
KO% of total fights= 71.5%


Tyson's opponents were 9.3% bigger, had 28.6% more KO's and 50% less losses than Ali's opponents

Can anyone say, "red herring?"

Btw, as an extension of the Words thread, you wanted, '50% fewer losses' as the correct phrasing.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

pringle wrote:Ali and Tyson 10-0 8 KO's during the mentioned age period.

Ali's opponents at time of fight:
total record= 442-60-7 284 KO's
Average Weight= 205 lbs

Loss % of total fights= 11.8%
KO% of total fights= 55.8%

Tyson's opponents at time of fight:
total record= 286-17-2 218 KO's
Average Weight= 224 lbs.

Loss % of total fights= 5.6%
KO% of total fights= 71.5%


Tyson's opponents were 9.3% bigger, had 28.6% more KO's and 50% less losses than Ali's opponents

Can anyone say, "red herring?"

Btw, as an extension of the Words thread, you wanted, '50% fewer losses' as the correct phrasing.

Red Herring? Not likely, they are black and white stats comparing the two championship reigns of Ali-Tyson just like the title of this thread requested. Where is it not consistent with the Thread subject?

pringle wrote:
Ali's opponents at time of fight:
total record= 442-60-7 284 KO's
Average Weight= 205 lbs

Loss % of total fights= 11.8%
KO% of total fights= 55.8%

Tyson's opponents at time of fight:
total record= 286-17-2 218 KO's
Average Weight= 224 lbs.

Loss % of total fights= 5.6%
KO% of total fights= 71.5%

J.D. Chapman
total record 29-0 26 KO's
Average weight= 250 lbs.

Loss % of total fights= 0%
KO% of total fights= 90%

Pringles... I never said, nor do I remember thinking, that you were BRR. Perhaps you're inadvertently revealing something...
Funny wouter, nicely done.
Fighters fought less in the 80s than they did in the 60s, leading to less losses, and Ali's opponents generally fought each other while guys like Tucker and Biggs and Bruno were beating mostly stiffs, Smith got in there because Witherspoon either dived or was distracted by his drug problems, and Spinks spent almost his whole career at 175. Holmes was by far the best fighter Tyson ever met in terms of resume... except he was old, fat and rusty. I would favor Holmes in his prime to beat the Tyson who beat him in '88. The only opponent who Ali fought in his first reign who was truly over the hill and who perhaps should have been retired was Williams... who would have never beaten Ali anyway.
Ali's opponents were smaller than Tyson's average opponents... but Tyson was smaller than Tyson's average opponents. Quality beats size. Liston would take care of anyone on Tyson's list, Patterson and Terrell almost all of them if not all, Folley a good deal many of them. The bottom of Ali's reign, the guys who he was forced to fight, London and Cooper might have a tougher time... though Chuvalo and Mildenberger would certainly beat some people.
And I am again obliged to add that you two attempting to hide Buster Douglas under the pretense of preserving the purity of BRR's bullshit way of judging these title reigns is quite sad, and quite obvious. We're not going to forget that loss, whatever the sophistry and obfuscation. Tyson's title reign had an icing of shit on its cake.

I Feel Fine wrote:Pringles... I never said, nor do I remember thinking, that you were BRR. Perhaps you're inadvertently revealing something...
Funny wouter, nicely done.
Fighters fought less in the 80s than they did in the 60s, leading to less losses, and Ali's opponents generally fought each other while guys like Tucker and Biggs and Bruno were beating mostly stiffs, Smith got in there because Witherspoon either dived or was distracted by his drug problems, and Spinks spent almost his whole career at 175. Holmes was by far the best fighter Tyson ever met in terms of resume... except he was old, fat and rusty. I would favor Holmes in his prime to beat the Tyson who beat him in '88. The only opponent who Ali fought in his first reign who was truly over the hill and who perhaps should have been retired was Williams... who would have never beaten Ali anyway.
Ali's opponents were smaller than Tyson's average opponents... but Tyson was smaller than Tyson's average opponents. Quality beats size. Liston would take care of anyone on Tyson's list, Patterson and Terrell almost all of them if not all, Folley a good deal many of them. The bottom of Ali's reign, the guys who he was forced to fight, London and Cooper might have a tougher time... though Chuvalo and Mildenberger would certainly beat some people.
And I am again obliged to add that you two attempting to hide Buster Douglas under the pretense of preserving the purity of BRR's bullshit way of judging these title reigns is quite sad, and quite obvious. We're not going to forget that loss, whatever the sophistry and obfuscation. Tyson's title reign had an icing of poop on its cake.

Listen, I'm sorry my stats upset you. I was just putting them out there for discussion, not to start yet another feud.
Personally, I agree with most of what you are saying. I don't understand why you take issues we agree on and then come back at me angry, I just don't get it.
I agree, those are just numbers, I had insomnia last night and nothing was on TV so I practiced my spread sheet skills a little developing the stats.

I'm not trying to hide the Buster Douglas loss. The title of the thread mentions Tyson from 20 to 23, I thought that eliminated the Douglas loss of the stats because Tyson got his ass kicked by Douglas when he was 24.

I'm not even going to defend Tyson's loss with the excuse that he didn't train for Douglas. True greats don't go into fights unprepared.

wouter wrote:

pringle wrote:
Ali's opponents at time of fight:
total record= 442-60-7 284 KO's
Average Weight= 205 lbs

Loss % of total fights= 11.8%
KO% of total fights= 55.8%

Tyson's opponents at time of fight:
total record= 286-17-2 218 KO's
Average Weight= 224 lbs.

Loss % of total fights= 5.6%
KO% of total fights= 71.5%

J.D. Chapman
total record 29-0 26 KO's
Average weight= 250 lbs.

Loss % of total fights= 0%
KO% of total fights= 90%

JD CHAMPION! hell yesssssss!

Whose mad?
And yes, fair enough, it is BRR who is responsible for the format, so I'll limit my criticism to him for trying to hide Douglas.

I Feel Fine wrote:Whose mad?
And yes, fair enough, it is BRR who is responsible for the format, so I'll limit my criticism to him for trying to hide Douglas.

Good idea, Douglas beat the shit out of Tyson. No way anything else could be said different for the outcome of that fight.

Your stats are worthless. Tyson's opponents were X per cent bigger?

How compelling.

I Feel Fine wrote:Whose mad?
And yes, fair enough, it is BRR who is responsible for the format, so I'll limit my criticism to him for trying to hide Douglas.

- Yesssss, me responsible for the garbage bait that sees you landed belly up for the umpteenth time.

Clearly the header format highlights two of the most storied periods in heavy history when two of the most talented heavies ever had all the stars and ducks in the universe lined up with brilliant favorable circumstance and stellar team support.

Both struggled mightily when external circumstances threw the trolley off the rails, a completely different thread breakdown demonstrating how the fickle hand of fate can affect otherwise great fighters.

Fleshing your schizoid rants about Tyson and Ali, too wit:

Yes, Ali at an advanced age was taking on the best and fighting competitive fights, some of which he lost and some of which he should have lost. But when this happens I say, as an objective viewer, that he indeed lost or should have lost. I think Young, Norton III, and Shavers were losses, and I believe Ali should have retired at that stage. I also, as an objective viewer, point out that when we say that Ali was a great fighter that this post-Manila version of Ali is not the Ali that we are talking about, just as the Robinson who was fighting Paul Pender was not the same Robinson as the one whom we call arguably the best pound for pound.

Last I checked Robby was approaching age 40 against a fine younger contender, not some rank drug addled amateur as was Leon. There would've been no need for the world class embarrassment of Leon had not all the Ali sychophants kept him artificially propped up in huge purses as he stole wins over fine era contenders deserving more.

Tyson never stole from other fighters, he took his lumps like a man no matter how disagreeable a persona he'd become.

Let's see if I got IFF nonsensical illogic correct this time:

Tyson's 80s reign average as was Ali's 60's reign, but Ali a HOFer and the best ever by end of 60s whereas Tyson will go down as the most overrated in history........real impressive like a sock puppet.

But wait, Tyson also a HOFer by the end of the 80s, just the most overranked HOFer in history, and wait, there's even more with Ali accumulating wins and large purses he didn't deserve in spite of it not mattering since he was the finest in history the decade before.

But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster,But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster, But wait, there's Douglas the Myth Buster...........................

BRILLIANT!!!!!

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Your stats are worthless. Tyson's opponents were X per cent bigger?

How compelling.

Worthless? Your mother is Worthless.

LOL, what a loser! LOL Take a hike you drama queen before I spank you.

BRR's comments are getting more inane by the day. Pointless discussion.

pringle wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Your stats are worthless. Tyson's opponents were X per cent bigger?

How compelling.

Worthless? Your mother is Worthless.

LOL, what a loser! LOL Take a hike you drama queen before I spank you.

I guess we know now why the bulk of your posts & threads are constrained to Other Sports. At least you're generating more attention here than you manage to there.

While you're running numbers on who won a greater percentage of their fights against completely different opposition, at various stages of everybody's career, & measuring fighters' biceps, the rest of us will reserve our homework for the tale of the fight, rather than the tale of the tape.

BRR is the dumbest poster on this site.